ZBA Hearing - February 11, 2025

new construction and therefore the administrative adjustment protocols don't really apply but we're

we'll just defer to the board's decision here in in any event thank you thank you questions from the

board yes a question um it says that there was uh the okay that when they tore down this wall

Okay, that when they tore down this wall, that they required a full demolition permit, as opposed to what had been issued before, which was a partial demolition permit. Am I reading this correctly?

Thank you.

so that's correct yeah so what's the what's the what's what's partial demolition versus

so if what we're really talking about is this one wall how sure if if i i can respond to that

and i i think mr sokolow probably would agree uh pursuing the the cities the distinction between

a complete demolition and a partial demolition really is based upon the international building

codes or the residential code, et cetera, and it really is considered a demolition as opposed to

an alteration or partial demolition if more than two-thirds of the structural members are being

removed. So again, if this were a row home and it had party walls on both sides, the front

facade is not typically reload bearing, and the removal of a front facade by itself wouldn't

constitute removal of a structural member and so you could remove a roof and the front facade and

it wouldn't be considered a demolition but because this is not this is a fully detached structure

or uh it's detached at least on the sides the front wall and it's only a one-story building

the front wall is uh load-bearing uh it's providing lateral support to the side walls and also the

roof itself uh the joists or raptors for the roof uh however it was constructed will also be

structural so by removing the front wall entirely and the roof you've you've removed two two-thirds

of the lni made it presumably somebody at lni at the site uh had made a determination that this

constituted a complete demolition at that point and again in addition to triggering our position

to it triggering the requirement of a new of a permit for demolition and new construction

it would also require you know it would trigger the other protocols for demolition which would

be like you know notification to property owners site safety reports all that kind of stuff

but again i want to emphasize the city didn't actually issue a violation in this instance

so i can't say absolutely that the city itself ever made a determination that this constituted

a complete demolition i believe on its face it does and the applicant themselves uh also

considered and understood that it did constitute a demolition but i have not been able to find

paperwork uh indicating that the city actually went out did an inspection and issued a violation

or did a cease operations or a stop work order or revoke the prior permit um i think it they made a

determination i believe correctly that it did constitute a complete demolition when they

decided to take down the front wall. At the very least, it was certainly a change in the scope of

the original permit application. Even if it doesn't constitute a demolition, it's certainly

a change in the scope of the permit application. So I think they did the right thing by bringing

it to L&I's attention. And if I may, Ms. Gaston, just as Mr. Reuter has stated, if this property

was an attached property, we wouldn't be here before the board because none of this would

have been triggered. And to hold us to a higher standard when we're actually not even

in jeopardy of impacting neighboring structures, I think is somewhat inappropriate. I'd also say

that the administrative change language does not necessarily contemplate this exact

situation in the particular language of it. However, it seems clear that the administrative

adjustment protocols were intended for extenuating circumstances such as this to allow for property

owners to undertake an administrative process versus an appeal process to account for changes

in site conditions, changes in construction protocols on the site, and we think this

is wholly appropriate for an administrative change.

I also want to just mention, while Mr. Reuter is correct that in my research there are no

violations issued, I think in his experience, my experience, the point is that we could

finish this building and have a violation issued at any point and our attempt to jump out in front

of it should be seen as good faith. And again, the bottom line of it is, you know, what

And again, the bottom line of it is, you know, what is the issue to the city to allow for this administrative change in a property that has already been constructed versus requiring us to go back through an appeal process that, as the board knows, is one subjective on a permit that we've already been through a variance on and then would have to, if not granted, demolish an entirely new constructed building.

It just seems wholly inequitable for the property owner.

It seems like a waste of the city's time.

It seems like an inappropriate use of the appeal process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, could you explain what triggered the construction team tearing down the original wall that started this?

I, Ms. Wynn, I apologize, as was noted, I was brought into it as a subsequent attorney, I would be making things up. And I don't want to do that. Before you, I also would say, look, it occurred, you know, there have been no construction violations issued at the building.

So I think for whatever reason, the construction team probably made a good call to do so.

And then as you can see, we in good faith and attempted appropriate and proper compliance with all city codes have filed for this administrative amendment once it did occur.

So I apologize, but I do not have that answer for you.

All I can tell you is the front wall is now built, sturdy, no violations on it or anything of that nature.

got it any other questions hillary do you have any follow-ups just the excuse me just a brief

clarification for um mr reuter um mr reuter in terms of of the city's position i understand that

they don't view this as an administrative adjustment you also mentioned that they

don't believe that there's a hardship argument there is but the city is also deferring to the

board is there um what's the city's position on on an equitable argument in this case well

i mean i i think it's probably fair to say that you know there's at least you know a little bit

of equity with the small e that's kind of built into the whole concept of administrative review

I think Mr. Sokolov was right in that sense.

Typical administrative review, which, in fact, like the first administrative review that was granted in this case is a classic example.

They had the property.

I think there was a deck or something.

They went to building code phase, and because of building code requirements, they couldn't have the deck the way it was situated.

So they came back, asked for a reduction in the scope of the variance because it was reducing the intensity of the variance,

intensity of the height in order to respond to a building code requirement that there

was there there wouldn't be relief from so that would be you know so again I mean whether

that's an equitable thing you know I guess you could say that's kind of you know sort

of equity-ish but we're just simply saying that you know the fact that something minor

might I mean I think anybody could argue if they did something during construction and

and now they need to fix it, that it would be a hardship of some degree to respond to that.

I'm just saying that that kind of consideration doesn't go into the determination of whether or not an administrative adjustment should be issued.

What I would ask Mr. Sokolov is, because it wasn't clear, they are seeking an administrative adjustment to the zoning permit to allow the replacement of the front wall.

um but again they would my understanding is that they did have they did get the full demo permit

uh and there would need to be adjustments also to the construction permits that are issued uh i

believe uh so so that's that's why we're here right i mean we're seeking the so though you'll

take the next so as to be able to pull the correct construction because in our attempt to do so you

know we got the comments from lni that it would either be an administrative change or that it

would require um you know a new a refusal to be issued right so again the city's position again

and it's related to the equity question is that equity doesn't really apply but also um the an

appeal against lni generally speaking can't be granted or denied you know on the basis of provisos

But, you know, presumably it's in the record that they will proceed and get the additional permits as they're needed if the administrative review is granted because there would just be new violations.

There would just be new violations. There would be violations later in the future if they changed the scope of the construction without additional permits.

There would be violations later in the future if they changed.

So basically what I'm saying is, you know, again, I think the board can make the call here.

So to go back just a little. All right.

So basically what you're saying is that this is not – this really isn't a minor adjustment if the demolition was for – considered to be for two-thirds of the structure.

If I might –

Just, you know, as a, that wouldn't be a minor adjustment that we will be approving after the fact.

No, and again, I think it's the city's position that the demolition itself, the change from an alteration or partial demolition to complete demolition, at least by definition, technically speaking, it's not an administrative adjustment because the administrative review provisions of the Philadelphia Code, what you're seeking is an adjustment of the variance itself.

So if you got a variance for height and you were allowed to build 60 feet and you want to reduce it to 50 feet, that's what administrative review is for.

So in the case of the original administrative adjustment, they got a deck and some other stuff.

They were seeking to reduce the intensity of this.

I agree that this is not really a change.

I mean, I wouldn't say that it's a reduction of the intensity, but it doesn't affect the intensity.

That's the point.

It's like the removal of this wall has nothing to do with the variance that was granted,

and it doesn't really implicate any of the prongs that would be met by 13.303 sub-16 sub-B.

It's not really any of these things.

It's just a completely different permit application.

um so but the new permit they need would be for because now the property was rezoned

so if i may miss gas the only five now or what is it that you need in terms of the

we i mean to put it as simply as possible we need for our building permits to say

new construction versus renovation or, excuse me, alteration addition because the demolition

of that front wall caused the nomenclature of this to go from partial demolition to full

demolition. And after full demolition, you no longer have addition alteration, you have new

construction. But for the building permit to say new construction, what do you need in terms of

variants, shall we say? There is no change or request for a change in the variant. Well,

you could use the original variants. So do you see, are you able to see my screen here?

we do okay this is this is the amended permits so the way this says addition to the second floor

if this would then be um new construction and technically since that front wall was rebuilt it

would also be new construction of that front wall so where it's to an existing structure

that structure is no longer existing as a result of demolition of that front wall.

So I do take it back.

There would be some amendments to the variance.

The language that states addition would change to new construction, an existing structure

would, I guess, go away.

Right.

So you still need other things which are not encompassed in this appeal?

That's correct.

I MEAN TO HAVE THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THE VARIANCE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THIS

IS STRUCTURED I'M SORRY COULD YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE OR YOU YOU NEED OTHER APPROVALS

WHICH EITHER YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR AND ARE NOT ENCOMPASSED IN THIS AND THAT ARE STILL LIKE NEEDED

WELL WE WOULD NEED THE BUILDING PERMITS UM WHICH WOULD COME SUBSEQUENT TO THIS

But you can't get the building without the variant.

variance. That's what I'm saying. We're seeking an adjustment to this

That's what I'm saying.

We're seeking an adjustment to this variant.

variance so as to be able to pull the correct building permits.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I know it's a bit of a novel situation. Perhaps it's

something that can be contemplated in the next rewrite of the code.

Any other questions? I just want to make one statement. I don't think it's that novel because

I've actually been in this exact same situation before in my life. I'll bite with a single family

home, but this happens all the time with L&I. It's one of the rules around what it takes to

pull a building permit and what constitutes new versus alteration. I feel like we spend a lot of

time in the construction industry debating what that two-thirds percentage means, and L&I has

been pretty clear about what it means, and I think this is an unfortunate and rare situation where

because the roof and that front wall do constitute two-thirds of the building.

This is like one of those rare instances where it triggered it.

And, I mean, it's unfortunate, but this is the process that we've got.

I think you're right.

We could talk about it in the future.

But at this current moment, this is how it impacts this building.

So, Mr. Sokoloff, we're going to vote on this next week at 930 on Wednesday,

and we'll have a chance among ourselves to go over it

and see where we want to stay with this, okay?

I figured as much, Chair.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And Mr. Sokolov, please stay on.

Thank you.

I have another case for you.

Thank you, Leonard.

That concludes my business.

May I be excused?

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

So number four, MI2024-004-351-2420 Wesley High Avenue.

Mr. Sokolov, just state your name for the record, please.

Yes, Oleg Sokolov on behalf of the Applicant Gymnast LLC.

Okay. And Mr. Sokoloff, for the record, there's a letter of opposition from all in the family. There's a letter of opposition from Strawberry Mansion, and there's a letter of opposition from Councilmember Young.

I appreciate that, Chair. I was not privy to the Strawberry Mansion letter of opposition. I just don't have it. I know that it exists, and nor was I from the council person.

I'll send it over to you, Mr. Sokoloff. Did you have a copy of the council office's letter that came in late yesterday?

That's the one I also don't have. I don't have. Okay, I will send those over to you.

Mr. Sokoloff, Tanetta Graham, our board member has a few questions.

Hi, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of

the refusal and do you stipulate to its accuracy? I do.

Oh, thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you. Let me share my screen, please.

All right, members of the board. Firstly, this one is

Certainly more straightforward than my last one, so I will try to go through it succinctly.

We are seeking a change of use to use an existing three-family structure for the purposes of visitor accommodation.

So I will go through our exhibit packet, and then I'll have my client, a representative of the limited liability company, come on to adopt the testimony.

The property was transferred to the current company in March of 2023. Here's the deed.

So this property was almost completely fully renovated interior renovations to put in new floors, new cabinetry, new tile floor here, as you can see, new appliances.

The owners have been attempting to rent this property as a regular rental for some time with varying degrees of success and certainly other issues that have become prevalent.

As the board may know, this is an area that certainly has a lot of vacancy, as you'll see from one of the pictures of the neighboring properties.

So our belief is that bringing visitor accommodation to this property particularly and this neighborhood, which I will mention does not have any hotels nearby, would certainly be a benefit to the neighborhood, would allow people that are coming in from out of town to have a space of their own, to have a space to come visit family,

families that live in the neighborhood to allow for their loved ones to come in and stay for a

short amount of time, for a long amount of time, for, you know, occasions, graduations, births of

children, things of that nature. You'll see that the renovation was undertaken very well and

completely new bathrooms, kitchens, floors in the bedrooms. These are typical photos of the units.

They have some variability in them to allow for a kind of taste of potential renters.

This property consists of three two-bedroom units, and it was noted, and here's a picture of the property.

you know it was noted and and here's a picture of the property you'll you'll see the you know

You'll see the

boarded up properties next door which are still existing in this condition um gymnast the the

limited liability that owns this property has has expended you know a substantial amount of

funds to bring this property into good condition to allow it to be used um as any kind of property

but unfortunately they were not able to find renters. And it's even stated in the letter from

all in the family. I'd also like to point out that this property, while being RSA 5,